While more than 2,000 scientists were consulted by the IPCC in drafting its reports, not all of them have agreed with the findings. However, even if there had been total agreement among this group, we cannot ignore the fact that these scientists were handpicked by the IPCC and their respective governments, most of which were beating the drums for the Kyoto treaty. Therefore, the IPCC's reports have been the products of political rather than scientific processes...

...the spokesman for the IPCC also claims that the climate has warmed in the last 50 years. However, he and other scientists have seen little or no warming since about 1940. Therefore, they can't put much faith in these "theoretical forecasts."...

...Another important factor to consider:

While the IPCC is able to show a recent temperature rise by averaging data from surface thermometers, there is no corresponding rise when data is obtained from well-controlled weather stations where local heating urban effects are eliminated.

Data from more reliable weather satellites show no appreciable warming trend since 1979, nor does the data gathered from weather balloons.

Data from tree rings, ice cores and ocean sediments shows, after the modest 1.0 degree global warming of the last 140 years, present-day temperatures remain cooler by about 1.0 degree than they were when the Vikings settled Greenland in medieval times...

I don't think anyone can say with absolute certainty that global warming is not caused by humans. That is the only point I was trying to get across. Do you agree?

Of course some of it is caused by humans. No person that is breathing can refute that because when they breath they are causing global warming. The contested issue is how much of this is counteracted by natural processes and how much of the warming we cause contributes to the overall temperature trends worldwide. I have yet to see a shred of credible evidence that suggests humans are contributing to any large or even minor quantity of global temperature fluctuation. I see plenty of evidence to suggest that we are not, nor can we, cause more than a very minuscule change in natural global temperature fluctuations. Human caused drastic global warming or cooling theology is a political power grab and a multi billion dollar business, that's it. So to answer your question, I believe we can say global warming is not caused by humans with near absolute certainty, but not absolute certainty.

I think GCs statement falls in the same category as proving (or disproving) the existence of God. With our current level of knowledge, it is impossible to know to what extent human activities affect the climate. It is impossible to even ballpark it.

In my opinion, climate modeling is not even a science yet, it is a dark art, judging by the wildly inaccurate predictions that are made by the existing models. Implementing policy based on some smart guy's completely arbitrary guesstimate is simply not a good idea.

PS. A good analogy would be to tell a contractor you need a "structure" by some date, and then cutting off all communication. Would he start building 2x4 walls for a garden shed, 2x6 walls for a house, a concrete and steel office tower? And where would he start building the structure, China, India, Idaho? Would he even start construction without a deposit of some kind? The extent of our knowledge of the earth's climate is like the contractor's knowledge of the structure you desire.

Yes... but we need to switch off the "PANIC MODE" first. Once we're out of "PANIC MODE", perhaps the socialists, the anti-capitalists and other assorted moonbats will stop pretending to be environmentalists to push their agendas.

The extent of our knowledge of the earth's climate is like the contractor's knowledge of the structure you desire.

Does that mean we should study it more?

Yes. It means we should study it more. Instead of being irrationally presumptuous that we are to blame. Instead of banning certain types of light bulbs and spending billions on energy saving programs, etc. etc.. Let's be sure we are to blame before we sink our economy into permanent recession.

One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. The idea that there is a consensus between ‘the world’s top scientists’ is used to brow beat politicians, to forestall media criticism of the global warming orthodoxy and to marginalise and ridicule those scientists who dare to speak out against the theory of man made global warming.

Until now, few people have explored the nature of this ‘consensus’. Who are these ‘top scientists’ and who says they all agree? As readers will see, from the few introductory links below, the ‘consensus’ is not all it seems. We urge readers to look at Professor Reiter’s testimony, for example, to the House of Lords

There are indeed many scientists, journalists and others who have built careers and staked their reputations on man made global warming. We should not accept their protestations that ‘the debate is over’, and ‘there is no more room for doubt’.

The implications on public policy of the global warming alarm (for all of us, in the developed world and even more the developing world) are enormous. We are being asked to turn the world upside down, to stifle industrial progress, in order to address this alleged problem. This is too big an issue for us to rubber-stamp the declarations of a semi-political body such as the IPCC.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum